Transcript:

Intro: Hello and welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our International Arbitration Practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights, and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started. 

Peter: Hello, everyone. And welcome to another episode of Arbitral Insights. And this time I say welcome to our viewers as well as to our listeners, because for the first time, we are on the screen. It's a video podcast as well as an audio podcast. As you will have heard. In the introduction I’m Peter Rosher. And since 2021 I’ve had the privilege of chairing Reed Smith's Global international arbitration practice. And in 2021, I stepped in to fill some very big shoes from the former chair. And that is José Astigarraga and José was chair from 2017 to 2021 I'm absolutely thrilled today to welcome José . For an informal chat. José really needs little if any introduction. He has been continuously. Recognized by all of the. Major publications and directories over Many, many years and that's GAR, Chambers, Latin Lawyer and also Latinvex And of course, most recently. José received the prestigious Lifetime Achievement Award from. Latin Lawyer for his contributions to international arbitration. Today I'm just going to have a chat with José. About his journey. Over the. Decades in international arbitration also going to seek his wise counsel for. Young practitioners. Coming into the profession and also. Ask for some of his insights. I'm looking into a crystal ball as to where he sees things going for international arbitration. So without further ado, I firstly a warm welcome José . It's great to see you.

José: Well, Peter, likewise. Thank you so much for those kind words. Much appreciate it. Totally justified. José if we go back and we'll go back now to the last century and the last decades of the last century. When you started one of the first international arbitration practices at a Florida law firm. And then in I think it was around the year 2000. So the beginning of this century you actually started, a boutique firm that was dedicated to international disputes and in particular, of course, international arbitration. I’d just be interested to hear sort of what motivated that. Well Peter, it's a good question. You know, as you indicated to me that you'd like to do this interview, I sort of naturally reflected. And, one of the things I did reflect on, of course, as we talked about, is the journey. And this was certainly a very, very important milestone in my journey. When, as you mentioned, I had been a partner at a large Florida law firm and founded the arbitration practice there and then. You know, it was the year 2000, and I left to start a boutique which was a very different model. You know, there were several things that motivated it but, there were two primary ones. First, it was 1999 and It was a big year, right? And so you reflect on things and I guess when I was a kid, I thought about 1999 and I said, “Oh my God, I'm going to be an old man.” And all of a sudden 1999 was there. And I say, well, you know, maybe not so old. And I felt that there was still a ways to run. But really two primary ones that that drove me was that I could see the wave of international arbitration that was coming. It was already been developing during the beginning, in 1990. And I could see that other firms were already moving into the space. And by that I mean other big firms. And I thought, frankly, many of them would be very similar to one another. And I figured, one way to compete was to be different. Right? But I didn't want to, and therefore I thought I'll call it the boutique firm model. But I didn't want us to become some small law firm doing whatever work came in the door. I wanted us to be able to handle the interesting cases that were going to be. On the road ahead. and to compete against this slew of big firms that was coming our proposition was we were small, but intense and so the tagline that we adopted was the power of focus and our message was very simple we don’t to many things, we’re not full service, we’re not even full dispute But what we do, we do very well. And hence the power of focus. Right? And that, frankly, that message resonated with clients and the marketplace. And, you know, at annual awards, you mentioned GAR and Chambers and so on. And, you know, every annual either or these awards for the best law firm of this, best law firm of that. And, you know, frankly, year after year, the awards were, you know, you'd have five of the mega law firms and Astigarraga Davis, you know. So that's it's we were. Unique. And it was a proposition that, you know, served us well and help position us very, very well. The second reason, because I told you there were two factors. The second reason, Peter was. Honestly the creation of a collaborative culture. When we founded the firm, we adopted some first principles. You know, things like not tracking origination, things like not referring to my client, but our client. Saying we won the case, that I won the case, even though the reason the case was mostly won was because of the lawyer who happened to be speaking. And we banished any talk about my book of business. And, you know, these weren't just platitudes. It may sound Pollyannaish, Peter, but that really created an exceptional environment where we were able to focus all our competitive energies, you know, outwardly, instead of wasting time inwardly, you know, trying to one up one another and so on. And now I realize that's not workable for a big firm. But those first principles really served us very well. And I think that the great majority of persons who worked at Astigarraga Davis. Over the years, appreciated the environment and it worked well for us. So that that's the explanation for how Astigarraga Davis came to be. Let's fast forward 17 years to 2017. When Reed Smith was lucky enough. That you chose Reed Smith as a move at that stage. I'm interested in what motivated you to make that move? We're very glad that you did. And then I'll come back to something that you said about. Sort of the collaborative and practice not necessarily being something that would that you would associate automatically with big law and big firms. So first, what motivated you? Perfect. Sure. Absolutely. Well, I would say for one, as in all important decisions, there was or most important decisions, there wasn't one single factor. But if I would say to you one that was very, very important, it was the opportunity to do more with more. You know, so often, you know, in life you get asked to do more with less. Well, this is an opportunity for us, but in particular me to be able to do more with more. And what I meant was, you know, our boutique was regularly courted by big firms to see if we would be interested in joining them, and they were wonderful top tier firms. But Reed Smith offered something, a couple of things really, that were especially attractive. The first thing was they were interested in investing to develop their international arbitration practice and brand. Now let’s talk, you know, turkey here to say the American expression. I said, put your money where your mouth is. They were willing to invest in the practice. And that's very, very important where you're competing at the levels that, you know, the global firms compete. and second, they asked me to lead the practice, lead the effort. And to me, that was very attractive. I enjoy building stuff. And so I founded two practices at my original firm. I headed one practice at my original firm, built that. I founded a practice, at my original firm, did that, obviously in collaboration with my partners and so on, built Astigarraga Davis and so on. And built a successful boutique and that was fulfilling. And at Reed Smith I come to you. I had the opportunity to do more with more. I had the opportunity then to build something even bigger than Astigarraga Davis, now on a on a global scale, and I say, I I'll get back to that in a second, but so my point is that that opportunity to lead that effort was something that was very attractive. As well, the firm had all of the ingredients necessary to do that. When I looked at it right, they had excellent successful arbitration lawyers. It had excellent clients. It had an excellent platform. What it didn't have was the brand recognition fitting for a firm this size, and I felt like I could help change that.

Peter: Yeah, absolutely. I joined in May of 2017. So I think it was 3 or 4 months after you joined. And I remember we had scheduled to have a call that was, I think, you know, it's about 15 minutes. We were on the phone together for over an hour. I remember that distinctly, just sharing ideas. And we both were becoming familiar with the depth and the breadth of what was being done at Reed Smith. And I think we both shared that sort of amazement that they didn't have the brand that clearly was deserved. And we sort of shared that and also shared the necessity for. Real teamwork across geographies as well. Just coming back to that little bit about I mean, in your view. This isn't a provocative question, but did you succeed in elevating the the firm's arbitration brand?

José: No.

Peter: Okay. I wasn't expecting that. Why do you say that?

José: Let me go back to first principles at Astigarraga Davis Peter. It was a “we” that succeeded. The Reed Smith we succeeded in raising Reed Smith's arbitration brand, it wasn't me. It was because of Reed Smith lawyers. I'm going to embarrass you, such as you, Peter, that we succeeded in taking Reed Smith from unranked in international arbitration space, you got to call it, as they were. They were unranked in international arbitration, you know, globally and taking it from unranked to being one of the Global Arbitration Review's top 30 firms in the world in less than five years. And we did that. Now, to those of you who are listening or watching this podcast or watching it, please understand. Peter did not and does not know what my answers to the questions were or are going to be. I want to make that clear. So this is not some scripted commercial advertisement for Reed Smith that has all been prearranged. I really mean that genuinely. You know, you ask me Peter, I think the reason for your question is is look you're driving it okay. How do what what does it take to build an arbitration brand an arbitration practice to grow at the position of the marketplace? so I think those are interesting questions for the listeners and viewers, as to what it takes. And my answer, about you and lawyers like you goes directly to what it takes to build that successful brand and firm practice. So I yeah. Like I said, I don't mean to embarrass you, but I mean that very, very genuinely. Peter. My contribution, my contribution to the process was in seeing how the pieces that were available could fit together, what pieces were missing, okay, and how to communicate that message to the arbitration community about the caliber of lawyer and the quality of service that we could offer. So I that I, you know. Honestly, I'm very professionally satisfied that I made that contribution and I'm pleased to say that it worked. Like I said, you know, we wound up making it to the GAR 30, thanks to you and some of our other partners and lawyers. Two position for Reed Smith in that short period of time.

Peter: Again, one quality, the knowledge that something is. It is a constant with you. José, is your modesty? Which, I mean, it was your vision, and it was under your. Your leadership and just installing that culture across our geographies as well. So, and yeah, I mean, it's a real testimony to you. And but again, I'm not trying to be a sycophant, anything like that. I'm just saying it as it is, the reality. Okay, let's move this on into slightly different direction perhaps, and talk more about. These are a number of organizations. And also. Projects in the arbitration space. That you have been part of. I'm thinking of things like IBA’s, the conflict guidelines, and also something that you co-chaired, which was the. ICC’s task force on witness memory. In all of the work that you've done and sort of on such projects over the years, is there any 1 or 2 that stand out in particular?

José: Yeah it's interesting question Peter, because it's been a long road and I've worked on a multitude of projects, interesting projects over the years. So I can't say that any one project stands out. But I certainly can say two areas in particular stand out. The first is the issue of ethics and standards of practice. You know, I do think that there's despite the convergence of arbitral practice and customs across the world, we still have a wide range of views and standards in much of that world. Now, if you look at the mega cases, the type of cases that you work on, Peter. Fine. There is a reduced group of lawyers, law firms, clients, arbitrators. That operate within the bounds of what I will call fairly common ground. You know, in terms of how those you know, how it views the standards, the practices, the ethics and so on, how the lawyers comport themselves, conduct themselves and so on. But below that, below the mega cases, I and there are very significant arbitrations. I'm talking about even arbitrations of 100 million and above that, in which I see lawyers and arbitrators not operating on common ground. Things as simple as, you know, document production and What is which should be attendant to document production. And you know, what are the requirements with exhibiting documents and things like that. Or what are you know, appropriate representations to a tribunal. The required accuracy it that you know and things like that. And, and I think that there is still a wide difference and gap in terms of how. Lawyers and arbitrators that are participating in these very substantial cases. My point is, look, this is not, you know, sort of consumer level cases. These are important commercial cases were being handled under two, almost two different sets of rules. and the contests in quotes that are taking place are being played really according to different mindsets of what is the appropriate way to proceed. So I think we have a long way to go on that front. I think the second, you know, we talked about areas, you asked me about projects. I say, you know, what sort of areas, because within those areas I worked on multiple products relating to that. you know, I've spoken a lot about our reasoning process Peter. As you know, on cognitive biases and, you know, things like hindsight bias, confirmation bias, things that I regularly have seen affect the output of our process, which are awards right? And I continue to see the effects of awards on things like hindsight bias. And I don't think that we as a community talking about the global arbitral community or the regional and so on, community are doing as much as other professions are to reduce the effect of such errors. I, you know, point to medicine and they're very focused at trying to reduce these things. You know, I have clients that that use Six Sigma Peter, which is in the manufacturing process. They will not accept more than 3.4 defects per million outputs. And I know we're not going to manage something like that in with something as subjective as judgment, right? But I think we need to do more to reduce the effect. Extraneous factors such as our cognitive blinders and so on are having on our output on our awards. And I don't think that we're you know, we're really focused. We're aware of it. But I don't know that we're doing enough and certainly we're not measuring enough. To reduce those. So those would be the two areas that I think are very interesting are very ripe. And could use more attention from our community.

Peter: Okay, well, that segways quite nicely into another question that I have for you and it relates to. You gave a speech at the Fordham Law School in the autumn of last year. And that related to artificial intelligence and the impact that that will have on an international arbitration. So, I mean, really. Do you think that that is going to improve? the problems that there can be with sort of the arbitral decision making process and things like confirmation, a bias or hindsight bias.

José: Peter again, Interesting question. And it really is two aspects to that answer I did. I gave the, I was privileged to be asked to give the keynote at Fordham Law School to cap New York arbitration Week in November. And, you know, essentially, I spoke on I'll call it computer technology. Artificial intelligence is a very, you know, laden word right now lots of baggage, right. With lots of people being concerned about the damage that our artificial intelligence could do and so on. And this that's understandable. I then. And so when I. Presented my address, I said, look, let’s park the phrase artificial intelligence. Let's talk about how computer technology can help us. And I do think that there are two aspects that I will comment on in response to your question. The first one is you asked me, look, Can it improve our reasoning processes? And really, I fundamentally believe that there is just a set the stage real quick. the research has demonstrated in the past years that. Arbitrators. Judges. And all of us as human being, are subject to certain biases. Including things like anchoring, in which it may not even seem counterintuitive, but because we all know that a mathematical operation is a mathematical operation and should yield the same result each time. Well, it turns out that depending on how, for example, the anchoring where you start a mathematical operation, is it, you know, one times, two times three, you know, all the way up to say eight. You know, the human mind will typically yield at one result. But yet if you start with eight times, seven times, four times, you end that one. The human mind yields a bigger result, right? That's just a very simple example is done by Professor Kahneman, who won the Nobel Prize for his work in this area, to show that the human mind can be affected by the logic of the human mind, can be affected by how it is. You posed the question, for example. And there I posited that computer technology can help us to overcome this type of mental flaw that affects our reasoning, right? And I actually gave some examples, obviously. We're here on a very quick podcast. But you know, in the address I gave examples of where I had actually taken some of the cognitive tests. Very simple cognitive tests used on subjects to demonstrate cognitive biases and gave that same test to ChatGPT and then Bard and so on. And you know, they didn't fall victim to it. Even though the human mind does. And so I posited that. Computer technology. Can help us to improve our reasoning process. And. I and I, and I would add two things with respect to that. I want to acknowledge that the computer technology is not currently ready for that. My message in my speech was a call to the arbitration community, which was, you know, I would count the IBA, The ICC and other arbitral institutions that we should embrace computer technology now and focus on how we can improve our output. Right? Maybe not the Six Sigma, Can't we take advantage of this very powerful tool to help us improve the quality of the output that we are generating? The awards. So you can use computer technology as sort of a check and so on. But I told you I wanted to comment two things. And when you raise the subject of artificial intelligence, because I think and that was my message, Peter, that was the thrust of my speech at Fordham. But the there's a second aspect to this, and I think that to some degree are I'm generalizing, of course, and we're here just having fun. But I would say to some degree, our community is in denial. Right. And I have read a number of threads in discussion. So, you know. Artificial intelligence will never replace human judgment. You know, and so on. And. And I think it is only a matter of time. And AI is very nuanced. So be very precise. I think it's only a matter of time. And I would emphasize a fairly short time before systems are devised whereby users will be willing to entrust certain types of disputes involving substantial amounts of money to resolution by computers. I'm not saying, again, the type of case that you handle Peter, mega cases, bet your company cases and so on, but certainly commercial cases, business to business cases will, I believe there will come a point. Yeah, fairly. Fairly soon. In which, you know, users are going to be willing to do that. I didn't see all cases, and I didn't also can say, you know, artificial intelligence or simply going to trust it here. You tell me what the outcome is. Let me give you an example. One of the interesting things I heard, Peter, while I was co-chairing the ICC Task Force on Witness Memory, was from arbitrators who considered that their default is that documents are the best evidence and that witness evidence should be received only if necessary. You know, there's I'm going to decide this on the documents. And really, the only reason I want to hear from witnesses is if I need to. Otherwise I can decipher the documents now. These are rational, intelligent persons serving as arbitrators who are being appointed by users, knowing that that's the default of the individual. And my point is that there are users who are comfortable appointing persons, arbitrators who default to deciding cases based solely on documents. And I want to make sure my point is clear. I'm not taking issue with anyone saying a particular case should be decided on documents. My point is that there are users in the community who are comfortable with that methodology. Well, if that is the case, then they. Then I think it's a very short leap, a very fairly small leap to think that someone can design a, an algorithm that can draw from the vast trove of arbitral jurisprudence and render arbitral, be prepared to render arbitral justice based solely on the documents. so the I'm not saying only in those cases where that, you know, it's only in cases that where, someone is strictly willing to do documents. My point is that easily that's one simple way in which I can say, look, it's currently being done on the documents in some in some realms, commercial cases. Therefore, what is the difference given what artificial intelligence computer technology is doing right now, to simply say, okay, well, you distill it from the vast trove of arbitral jurisprudence that's out there, and therefore, you know that we could easily have users being willing to entrust the decision to that, because I think the attraction of quicker results and lower cost are going to be hugely attractive. And I think that a certain band of users, you know, including big companies, would be prepared to sacrifice what I'll call perfect or bespoke arbitral justice. Like, you know, the type of cases you handle for more efficient and cheaper arbitral justice that renders an award that I call that’s good enough. So, you know, I want to be a little bit provocative. In raising that because I do think it's real.

Peter: I totally agree. Speaking of which, A client recently, and this is construction industry. So big construction disputes when they come about. That was talking about in these disputes. They accept sampling at times and was equating sampling with why not with artificial intelligence with something. Because there's a cost benefit to that. So now I think you're absolutely right. And I think we're talking about a couple of years, not talking about a decade or two decades. Well coming back to and this will make you blush again. Your lifetime achievement award from Latin Lawyer. I mean, looking back on your career. I mean, is there anything you're particularly proud of?

José: You know, as a lawyer. Thank you. Peter, you're kind to ask this. You know, as a lawyer, I can think of a number of things. Yes. you know, one first and foremost, knowing that I help good clients solve some difficult problems. You know, I it is a very rewarding thing when you've got somebody that is stressed and is concerned and, you know, you were able to help them find a way forward. Building Astigarraga Davis you know to its place in the marketplace. Along with my partners. Yes, that’s something that gave me a deep professional satisfaction and the contributions I made at Reed Smith Peter, helping build the arbitration practice and brand. But if I had to choose, if I had to choose, I would say that making a contribution to. The development of international arbitration in Latin America. And I don't want to overstate. I but the arbitration of Latin America is a phenomenal success. What it is independently of, you know, my ever existing. But my point is that, you know, having a functioning dispute resolution system is critical to economic development. Latin America is developing economically. It needs more economic development and so on. And today, you know, our international arbitration functions very well in the region where that wasn't the case, you know, 30 or 40 years ago. and it Today it's one of the leading regions of the world, some of the biggest cases in the world, some of the most sophisticated cases, top arbitrators, top Latin American lawyers, and so on. I'd like to think that I played a small part, Peter, in that through the knowledge transfer, through the promoting initiatives and activities that I did when I had opportunities to to serve in positions of leadership and so on. So that, you know, is is something that is, you know, brought me some degree of fulfillment or satisfaction of knowing that maybe I made a small contribution to that process.

Peter: I mean, I observed directly over the years. The importance that you give to. The younger generation coming up, but just how much you invested in. Younger talent at Reed Smith. I mean, what advice would you give to young lawyers coming into the profession? There's a pause.

José:Yeah, yeah, that’s a big question right? Okay. You know, you can give advice, I suppose, on many levels. At two levels, you know, you know. So I'll focus on this one on the, you know, essentially, I wouldn't even say as a lawyer, I would just say almost. As life advice, but they're all kind of integrated, aren't they? So what advice would I give to young lawyers entering the profession? You know, I would say four things, Peter. First life is too short to spend it doing something that doesn't fulfill you. You know many if most people on this earth, unfortunately don't have the luxury of choosing how they want to spend their lives. You know, be that for societal reasons, family reasons, health reasons, lack of opportunity. You know, any number. We just have no choice, right? That's the fate in life. But many people who have the luxury of thinking about becoming a lawyer do have choices. And what I would say is, you know, if being a lawyer doesn't fulfill you, you know, find something else that does. Because, you know, life success is going to seem very empty if at the end of the day, you haven't enjoyed what you were doing. The second thing that I would say is, you know, make a plan. Saint-Exupery said, a goal without a plan, it's just a wish, right? So make a plan. Figure out what you want and how to get there. The third thing that I would say, Peter, is think big. And what I mean by that is I think sometimes we don't achieve our full potential because we self limit ourselves. Right? And we limit ourselves in our own mind. And so I would say to you, to someone that would ask for this advice, I say, you know, think big. And fourth, and, you know, maybe most importantly I would say, Peter, is think long term. And what I mean by that is that along the way, you know, you're going to be faced with difficult decisions that bear on your ethics and your values. And sometimes it's difficult to do the right thing. Hard decisions, I find that hard decisions become less hard. When you think about the long term effect that your choice is going to have on you, on your life or on your career or on your loved ones, and so on. So, you know, if I had to encapsulate, you know, things that I wish I guess I had, you know, known at that stage of my career or be reminded of and born, you know, clearly in mind it would be those, you know, those suggestions.

Peter: Okay. Well, I would say i’d have been very grateful for that advice in my 20s and 30s. Over the decades, I mean, you've seen. Arbitration evolve significantly. And so now I'm just going to ask you all to gaze into your crystal ball. And what do you think lies ahead for international arbitration?

José: You bet. It's always a fun exercise, isn't it? Because you know you'll never be proven wrong, right? You'll be gone by the time you're proven wrong. I would say it's first international arbitration has a very robust road ahead, very full stop. But that's really only half the answer, right? I was privileged to practice during the dawn of the golden age of arbitration. And what I mean by that is, you know, when I started, you know, I saw arbitration, I didn't fall into international arbitration. I saw the wave of arbitration coming in the future as globalization was coming and so on. And I decided that I wanted to be that right. And it really was the dawn, right? So globalization takes off. Arbitration took off like a rocket, especially in regions like Latin America. There were lots of things that were being cut out of whole cloth. There were vacuums that needed to be filled with soft law and terrific projects going on. Like, you know, the IBA conflicts guidelines, the evidence rules and so on. Law reform was happening. Lawyers were hungry for knowledge in these regions and so on. And that still goes on. There are still vacuums. There are still, you know, law reform and so on, but it's in a much more mature and orderly way, right? So, you know, the opportunities are not, there's not as much, I'll call it low hanging fruit now, as there was. So that makes it tougher for young lawyers, you know, to compete and say for any lawyers to compete or set up, but particularly young lawyers who are interested in getting into this area. in fact, I was just reading. Gary Born's introduction to a book called 40 under 40. And in which he wrote, I actually I was looking at it here and so Gary Born wrote, gaining recognition in today's international market is difficult. Arbitration market is difficult. If there was ever a world where a cozy club of practitioners dominated the field, that has been transformed into an intensely competitive worldwide market, with excellent lawyers coming from every corner of the globe? And that's the reality of the current marketplace.

Peter: Absolutely.

José: So it makes it much tougher. And that really is exactly my point. The competition is very different now. So if you're a young lawyer or any lawyer, you know, you got to take that into account. So the challenge is how do you compete. As you know, the transfer, this transfer of knowledge, this development of expertise, you know, more and more lawyers become more and more sophisticated in terms of this area How do you compete with that? and you know, I can pin it down. I'll give you a specific example in terms of Latin America. In Latin America, you now have excellent law firms handling international arbitrations, very substantial cases that 20 years ago would have been handled by the international non Latin American law firms. That's natural. That process is going to happen in Latin America. It's going to happen in other regions. It might be a little bit behind Latin America in terms of their development of the arbitral culture. you know, language at one time, international law, many international arbitrations were being carried out in English. But as lawyers acquire the competence and the skills, and, and users gain the leverage to negotiate clauses, you're going to have more and more arbitrations in local language, in local centers, important cases. And that certainly is the case in Latin America now. Right? The mega transactions you do, I think is still going to be in English. But I see a Pac-Man, probably dating myself, you know, Pacman was just little video game, right? That would wind up eating its way and I see a Pac-Man of the local language and local centers eating their way up the food chain in the size and sophistication of cases. So to me, the idea of focus and specialization, Yeah. sort of the founding, idea of Astigarraga Davis, is all the more important, whether it's a boutique or whether you're talking about an individual lawyer within the context of one of the large firms. I think that specialization and focus is more important than ever. The big companies certainly look to experience and expertise. And I think the level, that level of analysis is going to work its way down to the lower dollar thresholds, in other words, beyond the mega cases and so on. So that even in non mega cases, clients are going to be scrutinizing the expertise and experience of the lawyers with the particular case. So my point just to conclude, Peter, is that I think any lawyer in this area, particularly the young lawyers, we've got to figure out how they're going to compete in a much more mature and crowded arbitration marketplace. But, you know, simply sort of, okay, I'm going to do arbitration work. I don't think is a winning recipe long term.

Peter: Unfortunately, we are going to have to come to a to an end. And as you know, José we’re trying to keep you at Reed Smith for as long as possible. So this next question hurts me. But what's next for you José?

José: Well thank you Peter. As you know, I. My heart is torn. You know how much I've enjoyed working with you and and our other colleagues at Reed Smith. And this. So. But. You know it. I think it's just gives me an opportunity for another reinvention, as I call it. And. over the years, Peter, my years as an arbitration advocate. I did serve as an arbitrator. I chaired tribunals. Served as sole arbitrator and as wing and so on. I'm eager to get back to that side of the table. And the reason I say get back to that side of the table is because around I had done all that, you know, up to about 2011. Around 2011, having served as arbitrator, I decided that I was enjoying my work as counsel so much that I started to decline arbitral appointments and accepted just a few in the ensuing years, you know, as I put it at that time. And I was actually asked this. When I was on the stage and on a panel. I wanted to be Messi. Or to use the UK analogy, I wanted to be Beckham, right? So I, you know, give me the ball. I don't want to be the, you know, the person blowing the whistle and throwing the little flag down. You know, I wanted to have the adrenaline of the ball and it was it was marvelous. I mean, I just so enjoyed my work as advocate. And as I put it, the adrenaline was calling me. But, you know, Covid comes along. I feel that I've accomplished, what, you know, if my point about Covid is, you know, it was an opportunity reflect on life and so on. And, you know, I felt that I had accomplished what I wanted to as an advocate, and helping my clients and, you know, had enjoyed my work as arbitrator. And so I just decided that, you know, I'd be ready to make a contribution to the arbitral system. You know, now, you know, get back to whistleblowing. and but always having fresh in my mind, what, you know, the burden and the, how tough it is to be a, you know, an advocate. You know, so I'm looking I will be looking as arbitrator, you know, never losing sight of how tough that others that that role is. The other thing and I'll conclude with this, Peter, the other thing that, you know, has intrigued me and that I loved in the course of my work as advocate, was negotiation. Right? And, always as well, the kept in mind that the object of what we were doing was not to litigate or arbitrate, but it was to find solutions for acceptable solutions for our clients. and so I've always had a great interest in mediation, and I will confess to you that I did not succeed in finding, you know, the the mediators that I felt were what we needed in the international cases, that I was handling, which, of course, were in great measure, you know, focused in a cross-cultural, you know, Latin American Spanish, you know, and so on, context. And so I think that with my background, in my bilingualism, my biculturalism and so on, I hope that I can make a contribution, you know, on that side as well. Be interesting to see how that unfolds.

Peter: Okay. Well, okay. Don't just bend it like Beckham. It'll be, bend it like Astigarraga right? So I think on that note, I'll just say. And it's been terrific chatting with you José Thank you. From me and from all of us at Reed Smith and I think that I'd like to thank everybody for joining us for this video podcast today. So thank you very much. Bye bye.

José: Thank you Peter. Bye, everyone.

Outro: Arbitral Insights is a Reed Smith production. Our producers are Ali McCardell and Shannon Ryan. For more information about Reed Smith's global international arbitration practice, email arbitralinsights@reedsmith.com. To learn about the Reed Smith Arbitration Pricing Calculator, a first-of-its-kind mobile app that forecasts the costs of arbitration around the world, search Arbitration Pricing Calculator on reedsmith.com or download for free through the Apple and Google Play app stores. You can find our podcast on podcast streaming platforms, reedsmith.com, and our social media accounts at Reed Smith LLP. 

Disclaimer: This podcast is provided for educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice and is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship, nor is it intended to suggest or establish standards of care applicable to particular lawyers in any given situation. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any views, opinions, or comments made by any external guest speaker are not to be attributed to Reed Smith LLP or its individual lawyers. 

All rights reserved.

Transcript is auto-generated.